- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court orders Google, Facebook and Twitter to remove defamatory videos against Amul
Delhi High Court orders Google, Facebook and Twitter to remove defamatory videos against Amul
The slanderous campaign was launched against the dairy brand with the intent to shift to plant-based products
The Delhi High Court has ordered the multinational technology company Google, and social media platforms Facebook and Twitter to remove defamatory videos against the dairy brand Amul.
Appearing on behalf of Amul, advocate Abhishek Singh submitted that the defendants had initiated a malicious, and slanderous campaign against Amul. The defamatory operation was launched with the sole intention of creating bias, fear, and psychosis in the minds of the public. The objective was to give up Amul dairy products and instead shift to plant-based products including almond milk, soy milk, and tofu.
Singh complained that various well-known advertisements and jingles of the brand were taken and edited with clippings of dairy animals being brutally tortured. This was done with the ulterior motive of causing serious harm and injury to Amul, the highly reputed brand, and its well-known brand name and trademark.
On the other hand, the counsel for the defendant submitted that immediately on receiving a legal notice by Amul in June last, the boy who initiated this mischief had deleted the videos he uploaded.
She also submitted that he needed counseling, not punishment, as he only wanted to create awareness after being inspired by some documentaries he watched on Netflix.
The defendant, on oath, acknowledged that after removing the videos from the social media platforms, he had also de-activated all his accounts. He submitted that he was neither a part of any organization or association nor received any payment from any third party.